Appeal 2007-2551
Application 10/359,160
silicone or varnish of Poole and Parker, respectively, as a substitute for the
chipboard of Knauf to prevent adhesion between the polyethylene layer of
the wrapper and the paper of the ream. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments that Poole and Parker are from non-analogous arts. All the
references are directed to solving the same problem, namely, preventing
adhesion between adjacent sheets at certain areas. While Appellant
maintains that “Knauf presents a suitable solution to the identified problem -
the use of chipboards - and does not teach or suggest that any other solution
should be sought” (sentence bridging principal Br. 6-7), we are persuaded
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use
silicone or varnish as an alternative to the chipboard of Knauf, with each
material presenting its own advantages and disadvantages. Also, we concur
with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
properly motivated to substitute silicone or varnish for the chipboard of
Knauf for the purpose of reducing the thickness of the packaged ream, as
well as its extra weight.
Appellant does not present separate substantive arguments against the
separate rejections of claims 28 and 31 but relies upon the asserted
deficiency of the combinations of Knauf with Poole and Parker.
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by the
Examiner.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013